4 ms·

I know that mall. The usual happened; developers wanted to build lots of housing and no infrastructure. The builder had recently reneged on elderly housing unit

I know that mall. The usual happened; developers wanted to build lots of housing and no infrastructure. The builder had recently reneged on elderly housing units in another development and were not believed about building a park on top of the structure. Building density housing is cheap compared to building the schools, parks, fire, police stations, and transportation to support the new density housing.

ianferrel 8y ago
> Building density housing is cheap compared to building the schools, parks, fire, police stations, and transportation to support the new density housing. Are developers expected to build those? Don't cities build roads, schools, parks, and police stations with the tax income from the people who live in the houses?
- seanp2k2 8y ago
  Yeah, and to be clear, we’re talking “luxury” apartments here, not anything single-family. Bay Area developers ALWAYS pull this: promise “affordable” housing and only sometimes get stuck accepting affordable housing programs into their otherwise-expensive apartments. Examples of the developers who lost: https://www.lowincomehousing.us/CA/santa_clara.html https://www.lowincomehousing.us/CA/santa_clara.html Btw: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines "affordable" as housing that costs no more than 30 percent of a household's monthly income.
- vorpalhex 8y ago
  Can't collect tax income until people live there. Can't build fire stations or bus lines where there's no room. We've had this problem with developers as well - they want to build mega high-rise apartments with no parking whatsoever and force the city to deal with it, despite the city struggling to fill current transportation demand.
  - seanp2k2 8y ago
    Crazy when apartments in the city have no parking and you have to factor in an additional $300/month for a parking space that might be a 10 minute walk from your apartment. It’s like US cities maybe aren’t actually the best in the world or something.
- bigpicture 8y ago
  > Are developers expected to build those? Sure, maybe. Offering to build them for the city is a great way to build goodwill for your project. If you want to see the ridiculousness of building in the Bay Area, however, you only need to compare this project with another large project proposal somewhere else: https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/5/11/17340660/the-78-related-midwest-amazon-hq2 https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/5/11/17340660/the-78-related... This is nearly the exact same size parcel as the mall in Cupertino. But they are proposing 10,000 housing units and 13 million square feet of development (5x as much). The article calls it "surprisingly low density". But the plans include a new transit station, new roads, many acres of public space, etc. What it will come down to, though, is that the city will say "if you build this, we'll build that". The elementary school that will serve this development is already under construction. So it's likely that the developer will pay for at least half of the train station - it would be significantly more expensive than a school because it is underground at that point.
kcorbitt 8y ago
> Building density housing is cheap compared to building the schools, parks, fire, police stations, and transportation to support the new density housing. And to close the circle, Prop 13 makes it impossible for towns in California to tax residents enough to pay for the required parks, schools etc. There is an obvious solution (repeal Prop 13, and bump local property taxes enough to cover the infrastructure the new residents will need) but it's politically infeasible.

ianferrel 8y ago

> Building density housing is cheap compared to building the schools, parks, fire, police stations, and transportation to support the new density housing. Are developers expected to build those? Don't cities build roads, schools, parks, and police stations with the tax income from the people who live in the houses?

seanp2k2 8y ago
Yeah, and to be clear, we’re talking “luxury” apartments here, not anything single-family. Bay Area developers ALWAYS pull this: promise “affordable” housing and only sometimes get stuck accepting affordable housing programs into their otherwise-expensive apartments. Examples of the developers who lost: https://www.lowincomehousing.us/CA/santa_clara.html https://www.lowincomehousing.us/CA/santa_clara.html Btw: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines "affordable" as housing that costs no more than 30 percent of a household's monthly income.
vorpalhex 8y ago
Can't collect tax income until people live there. Can't build fire stations or bus lines where there's no room. We've had this problem with developers as well - they want to build mega high-rise apartments with no parking whatsoever and force the city to deal with it, despite the city struggling to fill current transportation demand.
- seanp2k2 8y ago
  Crazy when apartments in the city have no parking and you have to factor in an additional $300/month for a parking space that might be a 10 minute walk from your apartment. It’s like US cities maybe aren’t actually the best in the world or something.
bigpicture 8y ago
> Are developers expected to build those? Sure, maybe. Offering to build them for the city is a great way to build goodwill for your project. If you want to see the ridiculousness of building in the Bay Area, however, you only need to compare this project with another large project proposal somewhere else: https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/5/11/17340660/the-78-related-midwest-amazon-hq2 https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/5/11/17340660/the-78-related... This is nearly the exact same size parcel as the mall in Cupertino. But they are proposing 10,000 housing units and 13 million square feet of development (5x as much). The article calls it "surprisingly low density". But the plans include a new transit station, new roads, many acres of public space, etc. What it will come down to, though, is that the city will say "if you build this, we'll build that". The elementary school that will serve this development is already under construction. So it's likely that the developer will pay for at least half of the train station - it would be significantly more expensive than a school because it is underground at that point.

kcorbitt 8y ago

> Building density housing is cheap compared to building the schools, parks, fire, police stations, and transportation to support the new density housing. And to close the circle, Prop 13 makes it impossible for towns in California to tax residents enough to pay for the required parks, schools etc. There is an obvious solution (repeal Prop 13, and bump local property taxes enough to cover the infrastructure the new residents will need) but it's politically infeasible.